Bob Woolmer Dies

[Red_Al_77]

Cant make them the scapegoats. What about the poison that was discovered in The tissue samples taken from Woolmer?

There is a lot of covering up here

No covering up whatsoever. The chemicals found in his body are the same as those used on cricket pitches etc. That has already been announced.

As I said ages ago people mouthed off too much to the press and were not up to the job. This is gonna run and run.

[Red Chilli]

I'm still not getting excited until the people who actually DID the post mortem come out and say he wasnt murdered.

As far as I'm aware there were 2 pathologists ACTUALLY conducting a post mortem and they both said it wasn't death by natural causes. So Scotland Yard can come up with all the theories they want, but let's be honest, Scotland Yard are not infallible.

[dww]

I'm still not getting excited until the people who actually DID the post mortem come out and say he wasnt murdered.

As far as I'm aware there were 2 pathologists ACTUALLY conducting a post mortem and they both said it wasn't death by natural causes. So Scotland Yard can come up with all the theories they want, but let's be honest, Scotland Yard are not infallible.

To be fair the first one pronounced his investigation was inconclusive which is a long way from ruling out natural causes. Not sure what the verdict of any second opinion was though.

You wouldn't expect strangulation to be ambiguous though would you?

[Red_Al_77]

Let's see what the Coroner decides. Perhaps the CCTV actually shows no one entering or leaving his room other than Woolmer. Perhaps there is not one shred of alien DNA at the crime scene. Strangulation by its very nature is very ambiguous especially if the investigation is trying to say it was done with a towel. At this time it would seem there is not one piece of evidence which backs up the original pathologist's finding.

[Red_Al_77]

June 3, 2007



Authorities will announce next week that Woolmer died of a heart failure caused by chronic ill health and possibly diabetes © Martin Williamson

Although Jamaican police are refusing to comment, it is now being widely reported that they are set to make what will be an embarrassing climbdown later this week and admit that Bob Woolmer was not murdered but died of natural causes.

A review of the case by Scotland Yard, using a Home Office pathologist, is believed to have concluded that Woolmer died from heart failure and chronic ill health. The broken bone in his neck, which was key to suggestions that he had been strangled, is now understood to have been caused by his subsequent heavy fall.

Woolmer's widow, Gill, and their family are understood to have cautiously welcomed the news. Neil Manthorp, a South African cricket journalist and a friend of the family, told The Sunday Telegraph: "There will definitely be a great sense of relief if this is confirmed. I hope for Bob's sake and that of his family that his death was quick and painless."

An editorial in Jamaica's Gleaner newspaper said the u-turn might not be the end of the matter. "The twists and turns in the Bob Woolmer case will, we suspect, continue until all the rumours, speculation and half-blown theories regarding the cause of his death have been finally laid to rest by concrete forensic and other evidence."

It went on to say that pressure was now growing on Dr Ere Seshaiah, the pathologist employed to the Jamaican government, and Mark Shields, the high-profile deputy commissioner of the Jamaican police force. Seshaiah produced the autopsy which suggested that Woolmer had been murdered. Subsequent reports said that toxicology tests were said to have revealed that Woolmer had been poisoned.

Shields travelled to Cape Town last month where it is reported he warned Gill Woolmer that it had become "uncertain" how her husband had died and that there could have been a "misinterpretation" of the post-mortem examination results.

[dww]

If you are replying to me you got the wrong idea of what I was saying. I was saying strangulation was the less likely outcome.

Anyway what I said was wrong as I have checked on the web and the first investigation actually said it was strangulation. The ambiguities and the possibility of a second autopsy were comments I heard on the radio yesterday and were by a member from a member of the Jamaican police I think.

The newest reports seem to conclude that the original autopsy was performed by someone less than competant.

[Red_Al_77]

Police in Jamaica have privately admitted that their investigation into the “murder” of Bob Woolmer during the cricket World Cup may have been based on errors by the pathologist who examined his body.

The role of Dr Ere Seshaiah, the Kingston pathologist, is now under scrutiny after a review of his autopsy report concluded he was wrong to suggest Woolmer was strangled.

The future of the investigation – now in its tenth week – will hinge on toxicology tests that are seeking to determine if Woolmer was poisoned with a herbicide.

But a senior Jamaican police officer involved in the inquiry admitted that it now looked likely that Woolmer died from a heart attack induced by sickness. “I would go for natural causes, he said.

The unravelling of cricket’s most notorious murder case will prove highly embarrassing to the Jamaican authorities. Questions are already being asked about how an inquiry conducted under the eyes of the world could get it so wrong.

There could be a number of errors but the most important appears to be the postmortem examination by Seshaiah. He told The Sunday Times that he stood by his diagnosis that Woolmer was killed by “asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation”.

But does the evidence substantiate this?

Woolmer’s body was found in his room at the Pegasus hotel, Kingston, on March 18. It was the morning after Pakistan, the team he coached, had been knocked out of the cricket World Cup by the rank outsiders Ireland. The former England player had been vomiting but there was no sign of a struggle. “The scene was not disturbed. If someone was strangled you would expect some resistance or fight,” the senior officer said. A grown man would be expected to fight a strangler and acquire bruises and abrasions around the neck but there was none on Woolmer.

Indeed, Seshaiah, an Indian who moved to Jamaica 12 years ago, concluded after his initial autopsy that the cause of death was inconclusive. It was only when he reexamined the body that he found the suspicious evidence.

Seshaiah said last week that he made two significant findings: the hyoid bone in the neck was fractured; and there were three contusions, or bruises, inside tissues of the neck and a larger one at the base of the tongue. Broken hyoids are a classic sign of strangulation but only when other factors are present. So the contusions were the clinching factor for Seshaiah. He said: “Even if the hyoid bone is intact, the contusion is sufficient to say he’s strangled.”

Surprisingly, given how central his findings were to the investigation, a second autopsy was never carried out. The postmortem report and photographs were sent to Dr Nat Carey, the British pathologist who examined the victims in the Soham murders and Ipswich killings. Carey’s report – which was submitted to Mark Shields, the deputy commissioner of Jamaican police – dismisses the strangulation theory. Carey has requested an x-ray of Woolmer’s hyoid (which has been retained) indicating that there might be doubts as to whether it was actually broken.

Seshaiah based his diagnosis on a visual examination of the hyoid and concluded, without x-ray, that it was fractured because it could bend in his hands. This, according to a senior British pathologist, was a mistake. The hyoid’s component bones are normally fused but sometimes they can be bent because the gristle between them has remained pliable.

When The Sunday Times spoke to Carey last week he declined to comment on the case directly. However, he made the point that hyoid fractures could be caused by a fall, resuscitation or poor autopsy technique.

He said: “It is an important thing that just as one swallow doesn’t make a summer, so a fractured hyoid doesn’t make a strangulation. That is the very heart of the case.”

Referring to a previous report on the case in this newspaper, he said: “When someone has been strangled there is a great likelihood that they will have asphyxial changes in their facial skin [such as blood spots]. You already have opinion from the pathologists you spoke to that on the basis of the photographs [of Woolmer’s body] you saw, that there weren’t asphyxial changes on the facial skin.”

Jamaican police have now approached the FBI to find a pathologist who can give a third opinion. But the senior officer expressed concerns about the state of Kingston’s pathology service where a handful of pathologists deal with up to 2,000 murders a year. Last week Shields travelled to South Africa to inform Woolmer’s widow, Gill, that he was probably not murdered.

Professor Derek Pounder, a pathologist from Dundee University has witnessed the chaotic scenes in Kingston’s crowded mortuaries where bodies are often stacked on top of each other. “The pathologists in Kingston...are underfunded, overworked and limited by an archaic administration,” he said.

Pounder believes the contusions in Woolmer’s neck were probably caused by dissection during the postmortem examination. This would cause “artefacts” – gradual bleeding – which would appear quite marked by the time Seshaiah re-examined the body.

Questions still remain over toxicology findings in Jamaica that suggest Woolmer was poisoned by weedkiller. Two weeks ago, a Jamaican police source claimed Woolmer had ingested enough weedkiller to kill him. It was found in his stomach and on his champagne glass. Police now appear satisfied the substance was not in the champagne bottles.

One finding that could be important is that Woolmer had a “very” enlarged heart. Pounder believes this might provide a more simple explanation.




It's alright though because others believe him, and would rather have a pop at Scotland Yard and the Home Office pathologist than question the original pathologist competence.

[Neil Young]

It's alright though because others believe him, and would rather have a pop at Scotland Yard and the Home Office pathologist than question the original pathologist competence.

Is that a confession?



To be serious, it's a relief really. Doesn't it also show how "experts" can get things wrong? I wish expert witnesses and the courts would remember that.

[Red_Al_77]

Is that a confession?



To be serious, it's a relief really. Doesn't it also show how "experts" can get things wrong? I wish expert witnesses and the courts would remember that.

Very true indeed.

[Red Chilli]

It's alright though because others believe him, and would rather have a pop at Scotland Yard and the Home Office pathologist than question the original pathologist competence.

Is that a confession?



To be serious, it's a relief really. Doesn't it also show how "experts" can get things wrong? I wish expert witnesses and the courts would remember that.

I think it was a pop at me

I dared to suggest that Scotland Yard weren't infallible.



Once the original pathologist or the head of the investigation accepts that it wasn't murder and mistakes were made then I'll happily condemn them like everyone else for making a mistake. But, in the meantime, I'll listen to the people heading the investigation and the man who examined the body.
If there was such doubt I'm surprised they released the body so quickly, but you never know.

[Red_Al_77]

I think it was a pop at me

I dared to suggest that Scotland Yard weren't infallible.



Once the original pathologist or the head of the investigation accepts that it wasn't murder and mistakes were made then I'll happily condemn them like everyone else for making a mistake. But, in the meantime, I'll listen to the people heading the investigation and the man who examined the body.
If there was such doubt I'm surprised they released the body so quickly, but you never know.

Good for you. You keep listening to Mark Shields. Oh and where did he used to work?

[Red Chilli]

Good for you. You keep listening to Mark Shields. Oh and where did he used to work?

Asda?

[Neil Young]

RC, you seem very sure he was murdered. Do you know something?

[Red Chilli]

RC, you seem very sure he was murdered. Do you know something?

Nothing that anyone else following the story doesn't know. I'm not sure at all, but I prefer to listen to the people who DO know most about the case than people carrying out their own remote investigations.

Basically, if someone who has examined the body says he was murdered in conjunction with the person leading the investigation, then I prefer to listen to them than people who have been asked for an opinion and leaked their opinion to the press.

[Neil Young]

I think the Jamaican police/pathologist may have ballsed it up. Like you I didn't but I'm starting to think they did.